Breakthrough: Literally the breaking through rock or earth? Any kind of tunnel relevant? A mine? The breach of some embankment? Some object breaking through? Or "breakthrough" as some kind of important success?

Did the informants misinterpret the place? Or those told about the breakthrough?

Breakthrough: Literally the breaking through rock or earth? Any kind of tunnel relevant? A mine? The breach of some embankment? Some object breaking through? Or "breakthrough" as some kind of important success? Yes. No to the other ones

them = they = a group of people? If so, composed of H/A/M? H/A/F? mixed? Relevant how many people? If so, 2? less than 10? less than 100? more than that? the place where it was conducted = the country? state? city? street? institution? Is the place name in fact ambiguous (such as the US state of Georgia vs. the country of Georgia)?

Doriana:them = they = a group of people? YesIf so, composed of H/A/M? H/A/F? mixed? Relevant how many people? If so, 2? less than 10? less than 100? more than that? Probably more than 10, but the number is unknown to me. It is hardly important

the place where it was conducted = the country? state? city? street? institution? The country, state, city and institution was known, but not the street. Worth exploring. Good questions

Is the place name in fact ambiguous (such as the US state of Georgia vs. the country of Georgia)? Sort of, yes

Rogerchang:Did they misinterpreted the place for the similarity of its name to another place? I guess hte answer would be the same as the previous one

interpretation as a translation between languages? or like coding and decoding? Language translation is relevant, yes

Were informants legally got the information about the breakthrough? No it was obtained illegally

Did they think that the name of a street was actually the name of something else? Or that something else was the name of a street? Eg it took place on France street and they thought it happened in France, or vice versa.

Did they think that the name of a street was actually the name of something else? Or that something else was the name of a street? Eg it took place on France street and they thought it happened in France, or vice versa. Streets or street names are not relevant. It was another sort of place description. Explore

Rogerchang:

They mistook the name of a place for the name of a, say, ship? a ship for a place? No ships involved here. The name of the place is also hardly relevant.

Is any resemblance relevant at all in this puzzle? Yes Is all we have to know is that some misinterpretation existed? Obviously not. There is more to this puzzle than that. Find out what that misinterpretation was. It is quite funny.

Were the spies Russians? Germans? Japanese? Was it during WWII? Earlier? Later? Pearl Harbor relevant? The atom bomb relevant? Does it help to know the languages involved in the translation? Is one of the languages American English?

Atomic bomb: Implosion bomb design? No 100 ton test? No Trinity test? No Uranium refining? Yope Plutonium production? No Hiroshima bombing? No Nagasaki? No Is a specific scientist relevant? Not for the solution itself, but a particular scientistŽs name is a part of the historical narrative. It is not essential to find it as part of the puzzle, though Manhattan project? Yes

During WWII, the Russian learned from some of their spies in US something related to the development of the Manhattan project, i.e. the process of creating nuclear energy and an atomic bomb. However, they never discovered where this took place since they misconstrued the meaning of the place description. What was their mistake?

A codename? A town name? County? State? Did they think the Manhattan project took place in Manhattan? None of these. They knew that the facility was located somewhere in or around a big US city, but the name of that city was not a part of the misinterpretation. And Manhattan was not a part of that misinterpretation either.

Did they take a part of the description of the place for the proper name? Did their misinterpretation lead to the conclusion that the facility is located in another country? Another state? Did they misinterpret the name of the location for something else? Are differences between latin and russian alphabet relevant?

Did they take a part of the description of the place for the proper name? FADid their misinterpretation lead to the conclusion that the facility is located in another country? No Another state? NoDid they misinterpret the name of the location for something else? FA, but you may be on the right track if you rephraseAre differences between latin and russian alphabet relevant? No

Was there no name of anything? Were there coordinates? Driving directions? Some other way of finding a location? Confusion between units of measurement relevant? I don't know if the Russians use it, but here in Scandinavia, we have the word "mil" which means 10 kilometers, while the English "miles" mean 1.6 kilometers. This causes confusion sometimes.

Was there no name of anything? Were there coordinates? Driving directions? Some other way of finding a location? Confusion between units of measurement relevant? I cut this short by stating that there was no misinterpretation of any name, but a misinterpretation of the place description

I don't know if the Russians use it, but here in Scandinavia, we have the word "mil" which means 10 kilometers, while the English "miles" mean 1.6 kilometers. This causes confusion sometimes.

This is more in line with the kind of misinterpretation, but it was not about distances. BTW, Russian language does not employ the concept of "mil" (10 km), and "miles" is only used in an English-spoken context. Kilometers is the valid Russian distance unit in a context like that.

Landscapeish: a natural feature? A manmade feature? Something on the ground? The ground itself? Something underground? Anything historical relevant? Such as "former site of [no longer existing object or feature]"?

Landscapeish: a natural feature? A manmade feature? Yes, but beware of FA Something on the ground? The ground itself? Yope Something underground? Yes Anything historical relevant? Such as "former site of [no longer existing object or feature]"? Actually, yesish, but also beware of FA

Underground: Tunnel? Underground complex? Mine? Crater? Bunker? Part of a dam? Is the feature in question manned? Was it manned earlier? Is it abandoned? Destroyed? Relevant how old it is at the time? If so, more than: 10 years? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1000?

Underground: Tunnel? Underground complex? Sort of, yes. No to the other suggestions Mine? Crater? Bunker? Part of a dam?

Is the feature in question manned? This was during WW2. Irrelevant if it is manned today Was it manned earlier? Yes Is it abandoned? Not sure Destroyed? Not sure Relevant how old it is at the time? It was new at that time (WW2) If so, more than: 10 years? 50? 100? 200? 500? 1000?

Was the feature secret? Public? Military? Natural caves put to human use? Did the Russians know its location? Was the misunderstanding in the location of this object? Or only in the location of the Manhattan project facility in relation to this object?

Was the feature secret? This.. Public? Military? ..and partly this Natural caves put to human use? No caves Did the Russians know its location? No Was the misunderstanding in the location of this object? Yes Or only in the location of the Manhattan project facility in relation to this object? I didn't see the difference. It was a key part of the Manhattan project, and the Russians misinterpreted the location of it

Did they think this object/feature was: somewhere else? Something else? Both? did they mistake it for another object/feature? Did they mistake it for another object/feature that was known to them? Decoys relevant?

Did they think this object/feature was: somewhere else? Yes.. Something else? ..and yes,.. Both? ..so 'yes' to this too did they mistake it for another object/feature? Yes Did they mistake it for another object/feature that was known to them? No or noish. That is: they probably didn't know the actual feature/object Decoys relevant? No

Was the other object (the one they thought it was): secret? Underground? Manmade? Military? I'll correct a possible misunderstanding here: the Russians knew what the object was. But they misinterpreted the location. Else, the answer is 'yes' to all your questions.

Shez:

did the object/feature description include a word which might indicate a different type of object/feature? no hill? no mount? no bay? no

or a word which might describe such an object/feature? high? windy? oak? snowy? no to all

did the object/feature description include a word which might indicate a different type of object/feature? Yesish. The location description given from the Russian spies included a word (even maybe two) that was construed to indicate a different kind of location. That's the essence of the whole puzzle. But what was it?

Did the word describe something underground? No. But there's a FA here. Try to find out what it is. Cave? Silo? Tunnel? Room? Mine? Could have been any of these. My guess is that the Russians thought the object was in a room or a silo, and very unlikely in a cave, tunnel or mine

Was it in Russian? In English? This Would the misunderstanding be made more easily by non-native speakers? Definitely, yes

Do both nouns describe something underground? No, not really. In accordance with the puzzle title and earlier given answers, it can be characterized as a description of the location as "under / beneath a .. X Y If not: only the first? Only the second? Neither?

Did they misunderstand: the first one? The second? Both? Their relation to each other? They misunderstood both nouns, and the meaning of the combination of those two words. The biggest misunderstanding was related to the first of those words, though

Answers to these questions differ somewhat whether it is about what it actually was, and what the Russians thought it was. I will answer as to what it actually was:

X: something natural? No Manmade? Yes A concept? No An object? Yes A landscape type? Such as forest? Or sand? A landscape feature? Such as a mountain? No to the restSame questions for Y. Same answers as for X

Real X: Size: hundreds of meters? some meters? Can people walk on/in/under/through it? In the normal position, is X mostly horizontal or vertical? Is X underground or above ground level? Water (lake/sea/river) relevant? Is X a plant (like power plant)?

Real X: Size: hundreds of meters? some meters? Real X is smaller than thatCan people walk on/in/under/through it? NoIn the normal position, is X mostly horizontal or vertical? Hard to answer.. the philosophical question is what a "normal position" is for X. You will understand when the puzzle is solved. Should I have to give an answer, I am inclined to answer horizontalIs X underground or above ground level? In this case, sometimes under ground levelWater (lake/sea/river) relevant? NopeIs X a plant (like power plant)? No - good idea, though - but explore

Hint: maybe it is a good idea to ask a few similar questions about Real Y as well as Thought X and Y

Real X: 1-3 meters? 10 cm to 1 meter? Is it round like a ball? Elliptical? Made of metal? wood? fibers? cotton? Can people hold it with a hand? Is it hard? soft? Do people have it at home? Or it's only found in specific places/buildings? Has most people seen it already? Do people in general use it on the day to day life?

Same questions for real Y.

Thought Y: a name used in geography (marsh, land, dam, reservoir, etc)? A single object?

Real X: Blooper alert: Real X is actually not a physical object, but the main feature of X is an object. I will answer related to that object in the following:1-3 meters? 10 cm to 1 meter? About 1 m longIs it round like a ball? Elliptical? The object does not have a basic geometrical form, but there is an elliptical element in itMade of metal? wood? fibers? cotton? Can be both metal, wood and fibers, but not cottonCan people hold it with a hand? YesIs it hard? Yes soft? Do people have it at home? Some do Or it's only found in specific places/buildings? It is normally kept in homes, but sometimes brought to specific placesHas most people seen it already? A lot of people have never seen such an object, but a considerable minority has Do people in general use it on the day to day life? No, but some do

Same questions for real Y.

Much longer than 3 meters. Neither round nor elliptical. Not made of metal, maybe sometimes of wood, often fibers, but not cotton. It is hard, but normally with some softness. It can not be handheld nor kept at home. Regarding knowledge and use, the same answers as for X.

Thought Y: a name used in geography (marsh, land, dam, reservoir, etc)? Yes, but none of these A single object? Noish or no

True story: Chicago Pile-1 was the worldŽs first nuclear reactor. It was built during WW2 on a former squash court under the abandoned west stands of Alonzo Stagg Field stadium at the University of Chicago.

The Soviet Union was well aware that the Americans were developing this nuclear reactor, and their spies and informants even discovered that is was taking place somewhere in or near Chicago.

However, the Russians were not familiar with the game of squash at that time, and misinterpreted the concept of a "squash court" to be a "squash field" for cultivating vegetables. They even translated it into a "pumpkin field" as they also didn't discern between squash, zucchini and pumpkins at that time.

One can wonder how a nuclear reactor came to be built in a risky and strange place like that squash court at the University of Chicaco. It was only in lack of a better solution. The reactor was planned to be built at the Argonne National Laboratory, but the construction there was prevented by a labor strike.

The Chicago Pile-1 didn't stay in operation for a long time at the squash court, though. The worldŽs first self-sustained nuclear chain reaction took place on December 2, 1942, and the reactor was dismantled already in February 1943 and moved to another place and rebuilt as Chicago Pile-2.

The Chicago Pile-1 was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1965, and is one of four Chicago Registered Historic Places since 1966. A Henry Moore sculpture, Nuclear Energy, commemorates the nuclear experiment.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.